The Gathering Storm

{1} "The strife of parties, like the agitation of the natural elements, purifies the moral atmosphere, and gives life and vigor and freedom to our institutions; but there are some questions too great, some too small for the exercise of political parties; and we have many duties … which we should come together and discharge …. Without inquiring whether we belong to this or that division of political parties ….

"Free public discussions are essential to the health of popular liberty, and the day which finds the public mind reconciled to the secret movements of political parties, will find us far on our way to the slavery of depotism. If good men may meet in secret for good purposes, we can have no assurance that bad men, under the same plausible exterior, will not secretly sap the foundations of public virtue." – Senator Daniel S. Dickinson (D-NY); quoted from "Speeches and Correspondence of Daniel S. Dickinson- Volume 2"; by John R. Dickinson; G.P. Putnam; New York; 1867.

There was a time when Daniel Dickinson was one of the most powerful politicians in the United States. Today, he is a footnote in our nation’s history, and while some of the figures he worked closely with – including Presidents Van Buren and Lincoln, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster – are well-known, Dickinson’s life is largely forgotten. Twenty years ago, my friend Marjory Hinman authored the first biography of the small-town, self-educated attorney who became a NYS Judge on what was then known as the Court of Errors (then the highest court in the state); a state senator from the 6th District; NYS Attorney General; NYS Lieutenant Governor; and a US Senator. Hinman noted that most people who walk by the statue of Daniel in front of the courthouse in Binghamton have no idea who he was.

Dickinson’s wife, Lydia, is one of three women that my 13-year old daughter views as fascinating, if not a role model. (The other two are Senator Hillary Clinton and Yoko Ono.) She has been doing some research on Lydia, for a possible book, which allows her and I the opportunity to have fun going to places that were significant in Daniel and Lydia’s lives. A while back, I sat in the Commons of a historic village that is found on the way to Ithaca, watching my daughter taking notes from the numerous NYS historical markers there, when two beautiful elderly women approached me. They wanted to know what my daughter was doing with her history book, spiral notebook, and pen during the summer months? When I explained, they asked if it was okay if they bought her an ice cream cone? It confirmed for me that what my daughter was doing was important in the context of community.

Later, we sat in a long-abandoned "pioneer" cemetery, next to the graves of Lydia’s parents, and I told my daughter how Daniel had been an often contradictory character. Hinman wrote that he "was a radical, for his States’ Rights proclivities were a little too strong, his adherence to the Constitution a little too unyielding, his expansionist ideas a little too greedy, and his gifts of oratory a little too overpowering." Dickinson was an advocate for the Irish immigrants, and supported Ireland’s struggle against the tyranny of the British, yet he was strongly opposed to Scottish-American activist Fanny Wright. (Ms. Wright was a reformer who, among other things, attempted to buy and emancipate slaves as "freemen," and was a suffragette who advocated the then controversial cause of birth control.)

Dickinson was opposed to slavery as an institution, though not because of any enlightened view of African-Americans. And his ignorance about the equality of African-Americans and women, combined with his concerns with the possibility of an actual civil war amongst the states of the Union, resulted in his trying to find a way to maintain the Union at the expense of those he viewed as second-class citizens and slaves.

His father-in-law, a country doctor educated at Yale, was a leading abolitionist in this area. I had shown my daughter some of the local "stations" on the underground railroad that Dr. Knapp was associated with. As we sat near Dr. Knapp’s grave, we speculated on what the conversations must have been like when the extended family gathered to celebrate the holidays.

{2} "No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinions and protest are the life breathe of democracy – even when it blows heavy.

"But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asks you to, or because someone else does. Please know why you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try when you disagree to offer a choice to the coursethat you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order." President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966.

In Daniel Dickinson’s day, the issues were slavery, states’ rights, and conflicts between agrarian versus industrial society. These issues caused fractures in the political parties and created temporary alliances between different interest groups. There were the Hamiltonian "National Republicans," and the Jeffersonian "Democratic Republicans." There were others, including the Liberty Party;the Free Soil; the American Party (aka "Know Nothings"); the Whig party; the Copperheads; and a dozen more.

Within the Democratic Party, there were significant divides. The most important was between the conservative democrats, who by no small coincidence were associated with banking interests, who were known as the "Old Hunkers" and the "Hardshells," and the radical branch known as the "Barnburners" and the "Locofocos" (after the newly-invented phosphorus matches, called "loco-focos.")

In the days of LBJ’s presidency, the biggest issues were the war in Vietnam, and civil and women’s rights. This country came as close as it ever had to a second civil war in those days. There were violent divisions in the nation, and that included friction between the modern Old Hunkers and the new left Locofocos. The divide was exploited by the dark forces that rose to power under the guise of the Nixon administration.

Today, the Nixonian disease has metastasized, and threatens the very Constitution that Daniel Dickinson struggled to defend. The threat is not so much one of a division between groups of states, as between the the Constitution of the United States (including that Bill of Rights), and the non-democratic forces that wish to rule from the shadows of secrecy that Dickinson warned against.

There are some Old Hunkers who say that the "radical" democrats today pose a threat to our party unity. They accuse the progressive grass roots democrats of being divisive, because we advocate investing our money and energy into those select campaigns of candidates who reflect our values. Maybe they need to study our history a bit closer.

Dickinson was the first politician on the national level to advocate for federal aide to education. I took my daughter to the spot where Daniel and Lydia built one of the first "universities" in this area, one of two in the area that prepared local students to attend the bigger schools in the East. We went to a couple of the local schools where Lydia had taught.

And then we went and sat near the water falls, where the teen-aged Daniel Dickinson worked at a cloth & carding factory. We talked about the similarities between Daniel and Lydia’s world, and our own. I told her that in politics, there are always going to be differences of opinions. Those differences can be found within families – including the differences between Dickinson and his father-in-law – and within political parties, and indeed states and nations. But we never fail because we attempt to do the "right thing," be it advocating for individual rights, civil rights, or human rights. We never fail because we take a stance to defend that Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The democratic party is not weakened or damaged by grass roots progressives advocating for an end to the war in Iraq, or for the congress to impeach VP Dick Cheney. But our party – indeed, our nation – is being harmed by Old Hunkers who refuse to do the right thing, no matter if it is because they are too comfortable or too cowardly.

There are so many good people, and so much good work that isn't part of the National discourse anymore.

Your daughter sounds like a firecracker!

and for adding some material to my summer reading.

You and your young daughter appear to be having a wonderful summer and perhaps someday she'll be able to post here too.

Until her voice is added in our forum, we'll continue to let the opposition and our side know that war, greed, and corruption will not continue in our names.

K&R and adding this site for those who are interested in more about the man:

http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/inside.asp?ID=73&subjectID=3

years ago, she did post a few times on DU. She reads DU frequently, and got a number of her teachers reading it, as well.

Lord knows, I sometimes think that they are our only hope. The young need to speak with us so we can leave them some sort of future.

Your daughter is fortunate to have you guiding her along the path of inquiry.

Unfortunately it is time for them to move beyond their comfort point and provide relief to the rest of those in this country who should be recieving it. That is one of the single most important issues in this country right now-poverty. It can tie into why those of us that have to work for a living are being shuffled around like product. This is why I'm listening and watching John Edwards.

Educational. Thanks!

Legislator's reluctance to impeach can be interpreted any way you please, but there is little evidence of cowardice (who do they have to be afraid of?) or complacency. And there is almost zero evidence that there are some corporate (banking?) influences which are guiding that hesitancy.

There is ample evidence, though, to suggest there is a reluctance to impeach because legislators perceive an almost certain outcome, given the balance of power in this Congress, weighted against conviction. And, there have been concerns expressed about the impact of a purely partisan effort. That's not cowardice, as much as it is a recognition of the gravity of the prospect of our party members substituting their votes for those of the Americans who elected Bush and Cheney.

Also, there is almost no recognition in your piece about the other functions of oversight which are producing evidence which is being bandied about without any regard at all to the Democrats who are working to uncover as much as they can in hearings and committees; much of which could very well lead to what you expect.

The party isn't at all 'damaged' or hobbled by the calls for impeachment. Our party is being hobbled, however, by the refusal of many advocates of impeachment to recognize and support the countless efforts by Democrats already underway to hold the administration accountable, which may, so far, fall short of your ultimate goal. It does no good at all to highlight divisions about the course of our party's opposition to Bush to the exclusion of those efforts which are just as intent on confronting the Executive as the efforts of those pressing for an impeachment.

None of these efforts are necessarily exclusive of each other, and none of these different efforts are at all assured to achieve the accountability we all seek. Their failure to gather some definitive amount of support at this time isn't because of some complicity. It's a measure of these legislators' acknowledgment of the balance of power and their determination to do something which will *actually have an immediate impact.

The efforts of congressional investigators may very well compliment the efforts to move to an impeachment at some point. But that milestone will be reached by our new Democratic majority out of prudence and a determination of the prospect of it's potential for success; and less out of some craven, political satisfaction of some personal self-interest or *instinct for self-preservation as I think you are suggesting.


edit: *

Humor is a good thing. Thanks.

in this echo chamber

Thank you, H2O Man.

I know what you think. I disagree, just as strongly as you disagree with me. We have very different values, and it is not a result of any lack of understanding between us. Rather, it is because we do understand exactly what the other is saying. I respect your right to express yourself, and make a conscious effort not to comment on the threads you start.

I've read many of your writings, and I agree with most of what I would think are your values. I share them. I think it's wildly inaccurate to address every reluctance to impeach as a value judgment. You can't possibly believe you can measure the depths of someone's aversion to the crimes and abuses of Bush by their support (or lack of) for impeachment at this time. Is that it?

Don't answer though. I'll say this. I sit here with as much at stake and with as much concern about this administration as most Americans. Indeed, the entire act of buying a computer, learning to write on it, were entirely sparked and motivated by my determination to follow and advocate against Bush's militarism and imperialism.

I refuse to believe that the majority of these legislators aren't as committed to nailing Bush and Cheney as those of us on the outside of the political system just because they may choose a different strategy than I would in accomplishing that. I see the majority of our party still committed to those things I believe in (those concerns that you've written about that I share), and working hard to accomplish those.

And I don't think they deserve to be called cowards or complicit in the crimes and abuses of the administration just because they haven't all yet moved to support the extreme remedy of attempting to remove Bush or Cheney from office.

I have no doubt that you are very nice. This is nothing personal. But in terms of politics, we simply disagree on important issues. Your first post on this thread was, in many ways, very similar to a recent thread you posted in response to those who are convinced that congress isn't doing enough right now to earn our respect. I read your posts on the thread; they were of a good enough quality that, for sake of this post, I'll call them the cream of the thinking that congress is doing pretty much as it should.

That is your position is of value for those who believe the way you do. It had numerous recommendations, and responses of people who agreed with you. I did not agree with you, but as I am not "busy and intent on spreading the lie that democrats aren't DOING anything," it wasn't a thread I felt inclined to participate in.

My recent threads have focused on the need for progressive grass roots people to concentrate their time and money on supporting those officials and groups that advance our values. If I were to be at all up to the task that I am attempting, then my message will be -- to borrow an idea from Minister Malcolm X -- a cup of hot, black coffee that helps wake folks up to the power that they have.

Malcolm noted that there are always those who feel the need to add their cream to strong coffee, to cool it off. And he noted that if one added too much cream to that coffee, you end up with a cup of warm milk. And warm milk does just the opposite of coffee: it puts people to sleep, rather than waking them up.

I am not suggesting that progressive democrats leave the party, or vote for anyone else. But I'm not going to pretend that this congress has done an adequate job of representing our values when it comes to issues such as Iraq, or the shadowy operations of VP Cheney. If I even tried to say that congress was making a sincere attempt, I am sure that those DUers who share my values would find that as unacceptable as I find what congress is doing today.

I like to hear from you.

I look forward to a broader discussion of the efforts already underway in Congress to hold Bush accountable which, so far, have fallen short of a call to impeach.

Two factions of the New York state Democratic Party in the 19th century. The party split over slavery in the 1840s. The conservative Hunkers (so called by their opponents as those who "hunkered" or "hankered" after political office), led by William Marcy, favoured the annexation of Texas and denounced antislavery agitation. The radical and reformist Barnburners (so called by their opponents as those who burned the barn to get rid of the rats), led by Martin Van Buren, opposed slavery's extension into new territories.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hunkers-and-barnburners

Huh? Then why no mention of election fraud?

Why were they afraid to vote against the seating of the Ohio Electors in January 2005?

Why did they confirm Condi Rice as Secy of State after she completely dropped the
Nat'l Security ball before 9/11, and perjured herself before the 9/11 widows afterwards?

Why won't they pass a binding resolution?

Why did they vote for the Patriot Act, and then extend it?

Why no outcry over Bush's executive order of 5/1 granting himself dictatorial
powers should he desire them?

Why no outcry over the Military Commissions Act?

Why no outcry over Bush's admission that he ordered the illegal wiretaps?

Why no insistence on accountability re: 9/11? How do we know the Pentagon
won't get attacked again?

Why no support for Kucinich's articles of impeachment, HR333, against Cheney?

Why no acknowledgment that Bush is the domestic enemy of the Constitution that
they swore in their oaths of office to resist?

You may be a very nice person with good values and all but you are seriously
out of touch with reality.

some of those things have nothing to do with this new majority.

It doesn't take that much to find the Democrats associated with the issues you raised. They need support, not a broad brush smear that they're cowards or the like.

"Lack of fortitude," or "overcaution" may be closer to the truth.

If impeachment were a legal process rather than a political one, there would be little doubt: guilty! guilty!! guilty!!! The Bush administration's crimes go beyond impeachable to verge on the treasonous, and certainly should earn leading administration figures a trip to the Hague.

However, as you point out, there is a cost -- potentially huge -- to pushing impeachment now. And so Dems, who can both count on their fingers and hold them up to test the direction of the wind, are holding off. They're using the investigative power that congressional majorities have given them to slowly, painfully, strip away the facade of secrecy the administration has used to cloak its crimes.

This may be prudent. It is also hugely unsatisfying to those of us who believe "worst president ever" is completely free of hyperbole and who feel that Bush and Cheney (et al) are the most impeachment-worthy pair in American history.

When it comes to counting costs, will Dems be rewarded in 2008 for their prudence today? Or will the electorate, which followed Bush for years because he was "strong," "steadfast," and "resolute" simply look upon them as weaklings who wouldn't even strike back when they had the upper hand?

Clearly Americans will elect a fool before they elect a weakling. Do we risk being relegated to the former for not going after this gang of crooks now?

"we can have no assurance that bad men, under the same plausible exterior, will not secretly sap the foundations of public virtue."

The very essence of what we are facing today, with Cheney in charge. He bided his time this last 30 years to get in the position where he and the Addington's of this world can destroy everything the Constitution stands for with their specious arguments.

There was a time, and it went on for well into the 20th century where doctors were of the opinion that babies felt no pain, so you could do anything to them. I guess they viewed them as insensate beings, a higher form of animal. Just recently there have been studies of the brain which show that animals can feel a certain level of compassion.

Now I'm quite sure if you asked the neo-cons, the members of the shadow government and the Hunkers they would express a variation of the above views regarding the American people. I am convinced that they don't think we are capable of seeing, thinking or understanding, anything. Thus they can act with impunity and not be held accountable. How many times during the Plame matter did we hear that it was too complicated for the American people to comprehend? And that type of thinking will be their undoing. I believe it's why the Hunkers are so furious with and volatile about the grass-roots progressives. By golly we can think, and are making choices other than those they want. We are a danger to them and the status quo. There'll be no more going along to get along. The dems in Congress are learning that lesson the hard way. It could've been so easy for them, they had us and we had their back. No more.

Young people are trending progressive as is (according to Media Matters) the rest of the country. I would say that over this long hot summer some serious reassessment better go on with the 2 parties because if it isn't, the real losers will be them.

:kick:

Revenge.

Apparently, the "Old Hunkers" lack the strength. They are weak and cowardly.

",...we never fail because we attempt to do the 'right thing',..." in defense of our Constitution and OUR Bill of Rights.

I needed your cup of inspiration. I've been feeling really worn out by those who truly do NOT give a damn about our Constitution and OUR Bill of Rights.

Thank you,...thank you. You are a treasure.

I sometimes wonder if some of our more conservative brothers and sisters understand the implications of the "bump on a log" tactics of this congress.

:kick:

to you, as well.

Thanks for the thread H2O Man.

Thank you.

I feel that it is wonderful that you have such a relationship with your daughter. Your posts inspire me. You are a treasure for DU and America.

BTW - keep eye on BAE story. ;))))

nice history. Bookmarked

Thank you for bringing history and context to our current events.

to do anything even remotely in the best interests of people.

using it to describe any Democrat today is wrong and offensive.

For example, in one of your posts on this thread (#16) you wrote, "I did bother to look up...." Let us consider the definition of the word "bother" ....

I'm using Webster's dictionary: "bother vb: 1a: to cause to be nervous .... 2a: to annoy .... 1: to feel mild concern or anxiety .... 3: to stir up petty trouble.

"bother n: 1a: a state of petty discomfort, annoyance, or worry..."

Likewise, "Old Hunkers" has meaning. Some were pro-slavery, and some were against slavery -- hence your "definition" was not entirely accurate. It had more to do with how they wanted to deal with the social-political issues that the conflict over slavery was causing the nation. They were looking for a "less severe" way of addressing those issues that "bothered" them.

It also was specifically a reference to their desire to win and maintain their comfortable political offices. The rate of re-election of incumbents in the House and Senate suggests to some of us locofocos that there are more than a few Old Hunkers in office today. The '06 elections were significant because people across the country "bothered" some of those incumbents. And I'm merely suggesting that progressive grass roots democrats be aware of that.

When we think of "Old Hunkers" and "barn-burners" today, perhaps those who are bothered by those words would prefer to use more modern examples. Let's move a century ahead. When we read about Martin Luther King, Jr's attempts to advance citizen's rights in the 1955-56 Montgomery bus boycott, we find that there were "conservative" voices warning him to slow down. They assured King that there were reasonable, mature leaders who were addressing these sensitive issues in less confrontational ways than Martin was advocating. These mature voices continued to find fault with Martin in Birmingham, and they were even more "bothered" when he combined civil rights with the anti-war movement.

In his "Message to the Grass Roots," Minister Malcolm X spoke about "house Negroes" and "field Negroes." Of course, Malcolm bothered many people when he spoke that way. But the truth is that our society has problems that are related to those that men like Martin and Malcolm spoke of in the 1950s and '60s. I think that many DUers are still bothered by the opening scenes in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," where a small group of people are asking some Old Hunkers for their help in challenging a system that would disenfranchise a segment of voters in Florida.

Now, I am not suggesting that those elected officials who refused to respond to the pleas from those progressive voices in those opening scenes were against allowing black folks in Florida to vote. But I will say that when we look at how they react to those pleas, we can almost see them channeling Winnie-the-Pooh's substitute for courage when that cuddily cartton character says, "Oh, bother!"

Perhaps in the future I will write a polite essay on the differences between the Winnie-the-Pooh democrats, and the Malcolm X/ Martin Luther King democrats. But today I will focus on saying that progressives at the grass roots level have more important things to invest their time and money in than cartoons.

I understand your point (I disagree). But, I really don't like the casual use of Hunkers. I really did research the history of that term beyond the definition I provided.

I really do object to the broad brush you paint our Democrats with, just because, I gather, they've chosen different ways to confront the Bush administration. The use of the term 'courage' is such a subjective term, and I wonder how you justify that notion with individual legislators. Does one have a race coming up, or were they just elected? Are you saying they're acting out of fear of republicans or Democrats? Why would the response from republicans strike fear in anyone at this point?

I really don't know who you are referring to and what evidence you believe you have that they are 'cowards'. It's real easy to throw these criticisms around, but the impression I get from most folks who insist on calling our Democrats 'cowards' is that they've conveniently cast their own, yet unproven, strategy as infallible and beyond criticism. I really don't believe that calling for a measure like impeachment and defining any approach short of that goal as timidity is courageous at all. I think it's just arrogant.

the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq by giving them a significant increase of funds is, in my opinion, the definition of cowardice.

To have a moral compass and see above the fray.

H2O Man: Keep on being the conscience of DU!

Thanks.

My children are grown now, but I tried to give them a sense of history from my Northwest perspective and they still listen and learn.

They will teach their own children well.

Fascinating.

:applause:

K & R

Your post makes me feel Locofoco!

that you know what I mean.

"It would be worth while, once for all, fairly and cleanly to tell how we are to be used, as vendors of Lucifer matches send directions in the envelope, both how light may be readily procured and no accident happen to the user."

http://blogthoreau.blogspot.com/2006/01/thoreaus-journal-28-jan-1841.html#comments


in lieu of fire (loco-foci)
dp

But I love the word "locofocos," and plan to use it frequently in the future (with appropriate explanation upon receipt of blank looks).

a wonderful word.